New Top General Tells Legislators U.S. Will Probably Need a Larger Army

[Judi Lynn]

New Top General Tells Legislators U.S. Will Probably Need a Larger Army
By THOM SHANKER


ASHINGTON, July 29 — The former Special Operations commander called from retirement to be Army chief of staff said today that the Army is likely to need more troops to meet its worldwide commitments.

Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, appearing at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee today, said that he has not yet formally reached conclusions on a number of critical questions facing the Army, among them required numbers of personnel and the fate of some weapons systems.

"But I'm going to take a little risk here and I'm going to tell you that, you know, intuitively I think we need more people," General Schoomaker said with far more candor than usually is on display at confirmation hearings. "I mean, it's that simple."

But he said that if he is confirmed by the full Senate as the Army's senior general, he will first review how soldiers and assignments are divided between the active-duty force and the reserves before making any recommendations about increasing the size of the nation's largest armed service. (snip/...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/international/worldsp...

(free registration required)

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

1. The old Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki said the same thing.

He was totally lambasted by the Bushitters and forced to retire early.

[are_we_united_yet]

2. D R A F T

[JPace]

19. I don't see how they could

get all the volunteers they would need, the draft seems
likely. I was watching the Charlie Rose Show last night
and one of the topics was troop morale is just awful
over there. They feel lied to and stuck with no idea
when they will go home. There are suicides going on.
Members of Congress with large military bases in their
states are being flooded with complaints about what
is happening. Reserves have been captured indefinetly
and are losing good jobs, many marriages are breaking
up. I don't think they can keep a lid on this problem
much longer and it was guessed that this will become
a campaign issue over the next year.

[Brian Sweat]

42. They were able to get all of the volunteers they needed in the past

The military was much larger in the 80's before the end of the cold war. We had a voluntary army back then. The idea that the draft will have to be reinstated to increase the size of the military a little is bogus.

[aquart]

54. They are clearly NOT getting enlistments NOW.

Not for the reserves and not for the regular army.

The word is out that these leaders betray their men.

Crash the economy to the cellar, force young men into uniform to have something to eat.

Think that isn't where they're going? The blueprint isn't PNAC, it's 1984.

[Julien Sorel]

63. There was no war going on in the past.

Makes the military a little less attractive to the brave young patriots who would otherwise enlist. Military service is a cool alternative to a job at Burger King, until the shooting starts.

[happyslug]

95. The baby Boom is TO OLD now...

The Baby Boom was from 1947 till 1964. It was followed by the "Baby Bust" of 1964-1971. Which was followed by the "Echo Boom" of 1971-1989. The Baby Bust reflects the huge drop in births after 1964 and the Echo Boom reflects the birth of Children to the Baby Boomers (1947 plus 25 equals 1971, 1964 plus 25 equal 1989, thus the Echo boom is 1971-1989). While the Echo Boom is slightly higher than the Baby bust, it is NO where NEAR the birth rate during the Baby boom.

What does this mean for the draft? 1947 plus 18 is 1965, 1964 plus 18 is 1982. The peak year for the baby boom is 1957 (plus 18 is 1975). Now the army will take people a old as 35 (But prefers 18-21 year olds) so the above dates can be spread out a little bit, but if you look at the dates when we had the largest Army (1964-1972) we had both the draft AND the baby boomers turning 18. When the draft was dropped the number of people who were turning 18 was the highest in the 20th Century. The Baby boomers only stopped turning 18 after Reagan became President. Given that many baby boomers still enlisted till they turn 30, Reagan had no problem with finding recruits for his Army (provided he avoided any armed conflicts that lasted more than a few weeks).

When the old Soviet Union fell, it was just before the time when the baby boomers were no longer of the age to enlist. The baby busters were the new recruits needed in the 1990s but there was simply not enough of them (remember all the stories of NOT having enough soldiers and sailors during Clinton's administration?).

Thus today the group turning 18 is the Echo boom (1971 plus 18 is 1989, 1989 plus 18 is 2007). While slightly higher birth rates than the baby bust, no where near what was coming of age between 1964 and 1982. Thus Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I did NOT need to draft given the large number of people turning 18 each year (And Clinton's efforts to cut the Military to reflect the fall of the Soviet Union meant Clinton did not need the Draft either).

Thus Bush II needs the draft because not enough people are turning 18 today compared to 1965-1982. Worse he has less people in the 18-35 year old category than anyone before him (including Clinton). Thus if Bush II wants to occupy foreign countries he needs more men (and women) than are willing to enlist today. Thus to get more of the 18-30 year olds into the Army Bush II will have to draft or give up his plans for world domination. Bush II needs more troops, and if he can NOT get them to enlist he will draft.

[knowledgeispower]

40. It simply isn't possible

People just wouldn't stand for it. I'm not sure what would happen, but I guarantee you that a draft for something like Iraq (IE: NOT a legitimate threat) just can't happen these days.

[bluestateguy]

3. In English: The Draft

Hope all of you are making plans for your 18-25 year old kids in 2005 if * is elected.

[Resistance Is Futile]

9. Draft = wind of change

Reinstating the draft would be political suicide. It's not going to happen unless the GOP is prepared to put up with civil unrest on par with that in the Viet Nam era.

[atreides1]

29. Not Really

What is there to stop Shrub from declaring martial law. He already has
the military chain of command in his pocket. Do you really think the
current group of commanders won't follow Shrub's orders. They already
have blood on their hands, so it's not like they can say no, and from
listening to some of them they would fit right into a dictatorship.

All we can do is wait and see, remember "All options are on the table"

[TAH6988]

30. Uhhh

Unless he issues illegal orders, the chain of command is kinda obliged to follow his orders. That's what civilian control of the military is all about. Would you prefer they just pick and chose which orders to obey?

[atreides1]

39. Taking hostages

Is still against the Geneva Convention, yet it was done by the 2nd Bde
of the 4th ID, and I don't recall reading any where that the Bde commander was relieved of his command for violating the Convention.
As a matter of fact he bragged about it to the media, it was listed
on several threads here on DU.

Task Force 20 has been resposible for the deaths of at least 5 civilians if not more, when do they get charged with negligence or
maybe manslaughter. They won't!!!

But then again I guess the ends justify the means. So what if we kill
a few Iraqi civilians as long as we get our hands on Saddam.

Tha's what it's all about.

[saigon68]

11. MAKING PLANS FOR THE DRAFT

What total Bullshit.

If they think it was bad last time (1964 to 1970), wait til WOLFIE,CHENY,RUMDUMB AND THE CHIMPANZEE will face this time. It will be massive.
The people (18-25) subject to this bullshit are a-political right now. Wait until they have to deal with their own ox being gored.

(They will need the National Guard to suppress the riots)

[Paranoid_Portlander]

25. The Nat'l Guard might not be here...

... to suppress the riots. Here in Oregon, many National Guardsmen have been ordered to Iraq.

[Rex]

50. I'm not so sure about that.

I've only been alive for 32 years, but from what I've seen in today's world people are more submissive to our government’s orders than ever before. I don't mean as in oppressed citizens, I mean as in vapid, slumbering, robots of the corporate world. Herding them from one type of chain-of-command to another doesn't seem to be a big problem, and once you actually get them to the theatre of operations...well...it's to bad so sad when reality bites em in the ass.

Where was the outrage and rioting over the 2000 selection? Where was the outrage over 10s of thousands of people losing their jobs because of cooked books? Where was the outrage when people learned about intelligence being ignored about Al Quada and the order to ground fighter jets during 911? Where is the outrage over a war that has been proven to be a hostile takeover by the BFEE?

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I honesty believe we have reached the saturation point to where the media can control the masses just enough to keep them from rioting in the streets and calling for open rebellion.

[brokensymmetry]

53. I think you're right.

People talk about resistance to a draft, but, as you say, there is a lot of apathy. And a lot depends on how it's sold.

The reason (at least partly?) for resistance to the Vietnam-era draft was that lots of draftees got sent over there, and then got hurt and killed.

But suppose that the draft is presented as a program of required national service. One could get one of a few precious slots working in a national park. Or one might help out in homeland security. Those who preferred to go to the Army could do so.

What does this do? Well, it reduces the unemployment numbers. It increases the number going into the military, as well as the various security fields. And it minimizes protests since those deeply opposed to military service could choose other things.

No, I would NOT rule out a draft.

[dArKeR]

4. Bush the C- MBA Manager - my French friends told me the size neccessary

before The Butchers of Baghdad started the slaughter. This was also COMMON knowledge in ALL or Europe. Common to citizens on the street. You can go through history and see the forces neccessary for occupations. The Europeans have access to this information.

How could our top notch Media NOT know this? How could Bush's top advisers NOT know this?

Pick a Whore, send an email, try to save our children before more die. Ask to Impeach and seek Justice! Especially Woodwar, Fineman and Russert. Fineman just answered one of my emails. He was very defensive like I was a bully picking on a poor child. This means they do read our emails and we are getting to them! Keep it up!

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Kevin Sullivan: [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]


[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], q&[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], Talkasia@cnn ,[e-mail]

http://money.cnn.com/services/speakup /
http://www.cnn.com/feedback /

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail] .nz, [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

http://darkerxdarker.tripod.com /

[indictrichardperle]

5. agree, he is calling for a Draft

alerting congress of the upcoming request.

A draft is going to cause alot of protests. This war is not popular, i dont believe many people will be supportive of this. It will be politically disastrous for those pols who pushed this war.

[Skip Intro]

6. bush will have to take a stand on this one

and it will have to be for the draft...

hopefully that will finish him politically before he can finish any more troops mortally

UGGGGGGRRRRR

I just got a flash of cowardly dimbaugh and the cowardly faux news gang and the cowardly freepers all spouting off about how we must force our bright young men and women to fight and die in bush's oil wars, while they're - here nice and comfy on thier fat asses hiding behind the flag they desecrate...

Oh rush knows how many lives are expendable to get that oil from the evildoers, doesn't he?

How the f*** can a pResident who desserted, and a gang of loudmouthed never-served-before-because-they-ran-like-scared-children-when-it-was-thier-turn traitors possibly pull off promoting a draft?

[nolabels]

31. Hey, he has taken stands before, look at this one

http://www.awolbush.com /

(snip)
Serviceman's Mother Questioning Son's Role in Iraqi Combat Zone, By Bill Gallagher
Niagara Falls Reporter, 7/8/03


"The writer (I'll just call her Carol) says her "frustration level is at an all-time high." Her concern about the dangerous, interminable occupation in Iraq is deeply personal. Her son is with the 3rd Infantry Division over there, and she has no idea when he'll get home.

Carol calls Rumsfeld's office every day to complain about the situation, and in May she wrote President Bush and let him have it for suggesting the war was essentially finished.

"As I watched the footage of your landing on the U.S.S. Lincoln last week and listened to the speech about major combat being over, I found myself nauseated. While your political theatrics are being launched in hopes of getting the popularity polls up, my son is still in danger in Baghdad. Your feeble attempt at camaraderie with returning soldiers was patronizing, in my opinion."

Carol didn't miss the irony of Bush's flight suit fashion show. She reminded him of his year-plus absence from the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. In those days, George W. wasn't challenging Ho Chi Minh to "bring 'em on." He was hiding in some redneck bar in Alabama, working on the congressional campaigning of one of his daddy's pals
(snip)

[kayell]

12. Thank you for this list

will be emailing like mad today!

[Kellanved]

15. correct; that was a major issue

For not joining the coalition. The pro-coaltion crowd said: "Iraqis will greet us with flowers; hardly any occupation-force needed; just for police work"; while the (public; the private media was another matter) media and the anti-war people said "no way in hell." .

[IkeWarnedUs]

7. This can't be right - just two days ago Wolfowitz said . . .

On Meet the Press on Sunday, here is what Wolfowitz said in response to Russert's question about how many US troops it will take to win the peace:

---------------
"Our troops, our commanders, will get what they need. They've been asked repeatedly, "Do you need more?" They say "Right now at least, we don't want more." What they want more of, and we're working to get it, is foreign troops (W. talks about Polish and Italian brigades). And here is the most important thing Tim, which we really need to focus on. It's time - and I probably should have started it sooner - to enlist Iraqi's to fight for their country. They are part of the coalition. Many of them are willing to die for their country. It is much more appropriate to have Iraqis be out guarding banks and guarding power lines than to have Americans or even Poles or Spaniards, and that's where we need to go."
----------------

Does that mean Wolfie didn't get Schoomaker's memo saying yes, I want more?

Or maybe Schoomaker didn't get Wolfie's memo that he should shut up and get with the program.

Of course, Wolfie also said the Bush administration and the Defense Department would cooperate with the 9/11 investigation.

Hey look - in the sky - pigs are flying!!!

[jamesinca]

10. What I read in the response was more troops, just not ours.

Wolfowitz wants somebody else to take up the occupation of Iraq, so the U.S. can pull out its troops. It needs to free them up to invade Iran, or N. Korea or some othere country. It needs to give them a rest from being over there in general. The senate voted 97-0 a few weeks ago to get foreign soldiers in there. Other countries are willing to help, but not help how the U.S. is saying they must. I found an article in the Financial times that really hits it on the head, the responsibility of an occupying army. Here it is.


A legal minefield for Iraq's occupiers By David Scheffer Published: July 23 2003 20:50 | Last Updated: July 23 2003 20:50

The deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein will provide a welcome morale-boost for the Anglo-US forces in Iraq. It has become all too clear in recent weeks, as casualties have mounted and budgets escalated, that America and Britain gravely underestimated the task awaiting them in post-war Iraq. What the occupying powers may not yet fully appreciate, however, is the extent of their long-term liability under international law.

Because they rejected a United Nations-supervised administration of post-Hussein Iraq, the US and Britain needlessly shoulder most of the legal responsibility for the success or failure of the administration and reconstruction of Iraq. No wonder other nations and groupings, such as India, Pakistan and Nato, have rejected Washington's appeal for troops. Why risk the liabilities of a military occupation under current conditions, especially when a simple Security Council mandate could trump occupation law, with all its attendant burdens?

In an awkwardly crafted resolution in May, authored by Washington and London, the Security Council designated the two victorious nations as the "occupying powers". This title carries all the responsibilities, constraints and liabilities that arise under occupation law, codified in the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and other instruments. The UN assumed an advisory role but left the legal responsibility squarely with the US and Britain and reminded other nations of their obligations if they deployed troops in Iraq.

In the last half-century no country requiring such radical transformation has been placed under military occupation law instead of a UN mandate or trusteeship. No conquering military power has volunteered formally to embrace occupation law so boldly and with such enormous risk. And never in recent times has an occupation occurred that was so predictable for so long and yet so poorly planned for.

Occupation law was never intended to encourage invasion and occupation for the purpose of transforming a society, however noble that aim. The narrow purpose is to constrain an occupying military power and thus discourage aggression and permanent occupation. The humanitarian needs of the civilian population take priority and usually require the occupying power to act decisively for that purpose.

But Iraq - under Saddam Hussein, a tyranny built on atrocities - requires radical political and economic transformation in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a worthy goal now sought by the occupying powers. Yet their performance to date raises serious risks of liability under occupation law, which could lead to civil and criminal actions (even against military and civilian officials) by Iraqi citizens.

The liability trap deepens every day, dug by the failure of the occupying powers to plan for and take immediate action to prevent looting of critical facilities and cultural sites, to deploy enough soldiers to maintain security and to establish effective law enforcement on the streets with well-trained police. The occupying powers also risk liability in other ways: by their refusal to permit entry of international weapons inspectors or of humanitarian supplies from the UN and other relief organisations in the early stages of the occupation; by their failure rapidly to restore and maintain water, sewerage and electricity services; by having created unemployment on a massive scale; and by their controversial plans for the management of Iraq's oil industry.

Occupation law imposes high performance standards on an occupying military power and liability can arise quickly. This is particularly so in cases where an occupation and its many responsibilities were readily foreseeable - as is the case in Iraq, whose invasion was planned for a long time.

The challenges of humanitarian occupations by benevolent military forces seeking to transform devastated societies cannot be met within the confines of occupation law.

Indeed, in recent years the UN has developed much experience in overcoming that law's outdated norms and directly promoting democracy and economic development in war-torn nations.

The US and Britain could gain legal and practical advantage - as well as more international support - if the Security Council adopted a resolution to establish a comprehensive UN mandate over the civilian and military administration of Iraq. Its terms could be modelled on the other cases in which the UN has been called on to help transform a nation. Speculation that a new resolution may be forthcoming is encouraging, provided it establishes a new legal framework for all coalition forces.

With a fresh UN mandate, the burden and risks of occupation law would be greatly reduced for the occupying powers. Their main responsibilities would be defined by the Security Council rather than by a body of law that is ill-suited to the task at hand. Ultimately that would benefit occupiers and occupied alike.

The writer, the former US ambassador at large for war crimes issues, is a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington

[Karenina]

13. What they want more of,

are things like EDIBLE FOOD, COOL WATER TO DRINK, clean water to shower in, proper latrine facilities, mail from home and a command structure that considers them more important than sand flies...

[smallprint]

8. this reminds me of the scene in jaws

when roy scheider sees the shark for the first time and looks at the other guys and says,

"we need a bigger boat."

[gristy]

18. Yes! That was a great line!

[teryang]

14. This guy is talking the party line

He isn't talking about a draft. He's talking about mobilizing more guard and reserves. This is the same old, same old from the regime.

They had to get some guy who's been retired and out of the picture for awhile to disregard the lessons learned in the last two years. They are trying to avoid the discrediting impact of the war on Rumdums pet theory that you can have an effective but "small, lite and fast" Army. Can you imagine what would have happened to the Army and Marine Corps forces who invaded Iraq if they hadn't gone in "heavy" (with full armor)?

Wolfie's comment mentioned above that commanders were not asking for more is deceptive, in fact it's his typical lie. You have to have more personnel just to maintain the current force levels. It's a fact of military manpower management. Rotation isn't possible without more troops.

[jamesinca]

16. They already are doing that

The 25th div. out of Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, is on its way to the ME. Problem is, the 25 is the reinforcements for the 2nd div. in Korea. The Oregon RG are being mobilized also, so is a unit out of Arkansas. In any case, I feel we are driving on our spare tire. Why are we pulling the reinforcements for the Pacific Rim and sending in the Natl Guard for what was supposed to be a cake walk, a house of cards. Somebody misguessed on this. How many times did we do this because of Afghanastan? Maybe taking on Iraq was more than we could chew right now. We need to get the car to the shop, not just keep driving around on the spare.

[htuttle]

17. But didn't Rumsfeld say we could fight 4 wars at once?

Remember before the war, he was out there swinging a broken bottle around, challenging all in sight?*


*(Jon Stewart came up with that one...)

[jamesinca]

20. For my 1,000 post

That just goes to show you Donald H. Rumsfeld does not know what the fuck he is doing on most days of the week. Do you think that man could find his ass with both hands? I don't!! He has no business saying we could fight 4 wars. Maybe that was all talk to keep Iran, Syria and N.Korea in line while we had our sand box derby. But we have been exposed and I bet Iran, Syria and N. Korea know this now.

How was that for a 1,000th post.

[saigon68]

48. Awesome !!!!!

The truth hurts Rumdumb.

[teryang]

21. Driving on the spare...

...do we have one million ground troops on active duty yet with all the reserve and national guard troops mobilized? I don't think so.

This is what they are planning according to my interpretation of public press statements. This figure would require in the neighborhood of 300,000 guard and reserve GROUND TROOPS to be mobilized. Of course, I could be wrong, I haven't seen any public statements about the total number of ground troops on active duty at this point including active, guard and reserve Army and Marine Corps units. Active duty ground troops (regulars) is about 650,000 total. Of course some of the Marine Corps complement is embarked aboard ship.

We are driving on the spare and the treads are almost gone. Glad to hear any additional information or ideas on these points. Thanks.

[Patriot_Spear]

22. Shenseki vindicated AGAIN!

Rummy the Dummy is a menace to our troops.

[ursacorwin]

23. i think some of us may have missed a point

which is that recently the polish troops were given new responsibilities in iraq, and other countries are in dialogue over this very issue.

where does that 4B$ a month go exactly? i suppose some of it goes to those client states looking to get some cash for slave troop labor. what was that coalition of the willing again? luxemborg & ethiopia are on that list, i seem to recall...

my point is this: they'll spend billions to keep a lid on things until after the election. *then* the draft will come back. they will need a bigger army to realize the whole of the PNAC plan, but there's still plenty of time to spin, squeeze, and otherwise dupe people into believing we're "winning" the war on terra.

i for one would love to see a draft. progressives get to live up to their name and start burning draft cards, and these frightening little Leo Strauss wannabes i see all the time would get to put their BS where they mouth is. i know, it's a deadly & unfair solution, but at this point i don't know how else to wake up the slumbering, CNN watching masses.

[saigon68]

24. DRAFT = FUCKING HORSESHIT

What you end up with is

1. THE UNWILLING
2. LED BY THE INCOMPETENT
3. TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE
4. FOR THE UNGRATEFUL

It makes everything worse. It just could lead to rioting, blood in the streets. Massive civil disobiedience, arson, murder (Remember Kent State)

The Professional Military does NOT want a draft.

Drafted, conscripted, individuals in the computer age, make very poor soldiers.

[MattNC]

36. thank you

Points I've tried explaining for the last few weeks on here, but some people won't listen to.

[karlschneider]

69. You're right, but the other side of that coin is this:

a conscript military is far less willing to support a dictator (or an incipient one) who is legally and actually in control.

[saigon68]

71. True

But to start a draft in the middle of this mess, could bring about some very violent days on the streets of Amerika. This could lead to all types of disobedience concerning law and order.

[jpak]

33. Where does that $4 billion a month go????

A lot of it goes to Kellogg Brown and Root

for the privilege of undersupplying our troops with food, water and other necessities of life.

But that's OK - they are making a profit and plowing those ill-gotten warbux right back to the RNC....

[qb]

26. It's either utter incompetence or a roadmap to the draft

How do they expect to maintain a "volunteer" force when they:
1. Double the tour of duty (after repeated lies about going home)
2. Cut hazardous duty pay.
3. Fail to provide adequate living quarters, food, water, latrines.
4. Cut military housing, healthcare, childcare, ...

This looks like a concerted effort to downsize the volunteer military.

[TAH6988]

27. As a retired military person I have to ask

1. What IS the tour of duty in a war zone? There is no set standard tour of duty...it varies and is whatever the DoD want it to be.
2. When was hazardous duty pay cut? From what to what?
3. The miliatry has NEVER provided "adequate" living quarters (well the Air Force has). But food, water, and latrines are not a problem.
4. What health care has been cut for active duty military? Same with childcare? Why the hell is the military providing childcare anyway?

[atreides1]

34. Here are some answers to your statements.

1. There is no standard tour of duty in a war zone. But these soldiers
were told that they would be home once they took Baghdad. It would
have been better just to tell them the truth. At least in Vietnam
you knew you were going to do a year and then back home again.

2. The WH has reccomended a cut in the hazardous duty pay as well as
in the family seperation pay. It also wants a pay raise cap of 2%
for all E1s and E2s, and O1s. There has also been a cut in the
military construction budget of 1.5 billion.

3. The problem here is that re-supplies are not meeting the needs of
the force. Food and water is being rationed at some base camps
because the units are not being re-supplied on a regular basis.
Not all units have adequate latrine facilities either.

4. There are child care centers on some military bases, and some of
the funding comes from MWR.

[netsec]

41. Where are the answers?

I see statements, but no answers.
1. Which military briefing did you attend where anyone was promised they would be home after Baghdad was taken?
2. Please point to a reference for your statement.
3. Who says they are not getting resupplied? Who is not getting resupplied? Contrary to popular opinion, the military does not tote around port-a-johns behind their HQ vehicles. It is the responsibility of the medical and logistics personnel to set up adequate hygiene facilities. So if resupply and hygiene is not happening then small unit leaders are to blame, not the White House, Congress, the JCS, or CENTCOM. As a former Marine I will tell you that if I did not have a head available, I would designate a place to dig catholes. If my Marines did not have food and water I would be screaming throughout the chain of command to get what my Marines need. I have friends over there right now who say these claims are false.
4. Child care centers services are pro-rated based on rank. I am sure MWR/MCCS puts in some money into them. The reality of two working parents is just as prevalent in the military as elsewhere which necessitates setting up child care centers.

[qb]

43. I don't have time to chase down the links but ...

These have all been in the news recently:
1. Increase tour of duty in Iraq from 6 months to 1 year.
2. Hazardous pay cut from somewhere around $200 to around $120 (can't remember exactly)
3. I understand soldiers in combat have to put up with squalid conditions, but our soldiers are now stationed in Iraq. You'd think if they can come up with $billions for Haliburton they could treat our troops a little better.
4. I don't remember the specific benefit cuts - just vague recollections.

[netsec]

46. not quite

1. Army folks get sent to Korea unaccompanied for a year without requesting the duty. Marines and sailors are always getting their deployments extended. The main thing to understand is that troops always bitch about something. When they stop bitching, then there is a problem. I spent one extra day in Korea during an exercise and bitched about it. Did it change anything? Ask yourself this, is it better that we listen to them bitch and bring them home before the job is finished? Despite what you may think of this latest campaign in the war on terrorism, it is done and it would be supreme negligence to leave now.
2. Hazardous duty pay has absolutely nothing to do with being in Iraq. It goes to people who jump out of airplanes, defuse bombs, etc. Last year (FY2002) it was $150 per month and it is $150 per month this year.
www.dfas.mil
3. As a former Marine I guarantee that the only people who do not have access to porcelain (or plastic, wood, whatever) are those sleeping in the dirt because they are out in bad guy territory. If I were on patrol in a city and needed to take a crap, I would find the nearest restaurant, set up a security perimeter, and work my patrol through the bathroom. We may use a cathole when necessary, but if I can find porcelain I will use it.

4. If it's vague recollections, then it's hearsay.

[nolabels]

49. They need to pull the troops out of korea

As a Former 63f I have seen enough shit holes out in the field to know what one looks like. Spending a year in out in the dirt is nothing to compared to getting you butt shot at. And may I ad getting shot at just because you are what the other side calls one of *'s ugly Americans. The difference between the hunted and the hunter is very slim over there.

[netsec]

56. 63f

You were a prosthodontist? What exactly is that?

[nolabels]

100. One of them dudes that goes out and fetches you and your rig when.......

It breaks or gets too shot up for it to move. Called a Recovery Specialist

[jamesinca]

103. Go to MWO for a list of the links

The latest flash by sybolman has the links listed in the text of the show. It is the army of one video that is there. www.takebackthemedia.com that should get you started in the direction of the links.

on edit: wrong website, it is not MWO, it is take back the media

[TAH6988]

28. As a retired military person I have to ask

1. What IS the tour of duty in a war zone? There is no set standard tour of duty...it varies and is whatever the DoD want it to be.
2. When was hazardous duty pay cut? From what to what?
3. The miliatry has NEVER provided "adequate" living quarters (well the Air Force has). But food, water, and latrines are not a problem.
4. What health care has been cut for active duty military? Same with childcare? Why the hell is the military providing childcare anyway?

[saigon68]

32. MILITARY BENEFITS

The military provides benefits or (BENNIES) to entice people to join the armed services and to STAY IN the armed services.

Child care is provided for a lot of single parent families so the parent can perform the job.

Without benefits very few would join the services.

You're right about one thing, the military never provided adequate housing. But then again what do I know I was "in" for eight years and got out because of the BULLSHIT.

I suspect if the military reverts to the way it used to be a lot of members are going to leave because of the BULLSHIT. (INCLUDING BEING ASKED TO FIGHT AN IMMORAL WAR FOR HALIBURTON, EXXON AND CHIMPANZEE'S LEGACY)

[Postman]

35. I was in the navy 1981-1986...

I'll never let them take my kids if there were a draft. Not for this corrupt illegal invasion, not ever. Over my dead body will they get my kids.

[Romey]

37. Send this link to everyone you know

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/onearmy.html

[saigon68]

47. AWESOME

This Flash animation should be sent to everyone. I am sending it to my whole mailing list.

What utter bullshit by the CHIMPANZEE who lied us into this War.

[MattNC]

38. the other branches

Aren't the other branches still in good shape though? The Army is the only branch I'm aware of that's "stretched thin".

[pbeal]

44. The Army is the one that matters in a ground war.

Not enough marines for any deployment that demands a lot of boots on the ground(besides its not their job), Occupying force(Iraq, Afganistan), Deterrence(Korea),antiterror(phillipines), supporting US puppet states(South and central america) and peacekeeping(Balkins, Liberia).
Neither the Navy or the Air Force are expected to or have the manpower or training to do the Armys job.

[FuseONE]

45. .

There will never, ever be another draft in this country. Hell would break loose that would make the vietnam war protests look like a spring day in the park. I wouldn't even bother worrying about it.

[netsec]

57. Marines

True. How many Corps are there in the Army? We only have one. It would be nice to have a higher end strength because there is much going on, but I doubt that will happen. Even so, except for one dark time during Korea, we have always been a volunteer force.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

51. Voters would never tolerate bringing back the draft...

It would mean the end of Bush and Co. forever...

[Wonder]

52. In the face of all this deception this admin still keeps rolling along

it is the revenge factor, plus the blood lust of SH son's, along with this pending cat and mouse came with Iran, and this new pending hoopala over more ALQ terror threads. There propaganda war has yet to falter it seems to me.

[gulliver]

55. Of course. Bush is wasting the army we have now.

"Currently, 16 of the Army's 33 active duty combat brigades are committed to Iraq."

Bush attacked and occupied Iraq which it appears has turned out not to be a threat to the United States. Now we need more troops to volunteer precisely when someone would have to be crazy to volunteer.

And then maybe we find out that anarchic Iraq is more dangerous to the U.S. than a continuously, internationally, and competently (as we now know) inspected Iraq under Hussein. Maybe we have committed all of these troops and all of these tens of billions of dollars to what could end up being called "Bush's Folly," the single worst military investment in American history.

[netsec]

58. You missed a folly

How was this worse than Vietnam?

Don't forget that Hussein's Iraq also had mass graves, gang-raping as torture, payments to entice Palestinians to blow themselves up, use of chemical weapons, defiance of UN mandates, and the list goes on. Guess we should have just let him keep killing people by the score.

[Rex]

59. I dunno about worse than Vietnam

but it's just as bad; Bush lied about the reasons we needed to take Saddam out, when in fact there are alot more dangerous nations in the world than Iraq.

I can't really imagine a higher crime that a President can commit then sending our troops to war based on false pretenses.

Thanks for bring it up netsec.

[netsec]

61. definitely not

There is no way could even compare this to how atrocious Vietnam was. Talk about false pretenses! The Gulf of Tonkin "attack"? 50,000 dead and we were chased out for good in 1975 because Congress cut the funding? So why wasn't Johnson impeached for his high crime? At least we won the campaign in Iraq and will win the peace as well.

I agree that there are other dangerous nations in this world, but each one needs to be handled in its own way. Think about this scenario. Three bullies working together. Each one dangerous in their own way. One of them, Nate Korn, you will have trouble with standing toe to toe. You would win, but it would hurt. The next guy, Nari, puffs himself up and you are sure you could take him, but don't feel like fighting him because he has brass knuckles and fights dirty. The last guy, Qari, puffs himself up, you know you can take him and it won't be too bad. Just maybe trouncing Qari so badly will convince the others that maybe bullying you anymore is not such a good idea. I realize this is slightly corny, but take it into consideration as a possible reason it went down this way.

[Julien Sorel]

65. It's not my responsibility to get involved with bullies,

unless they get involved with me first. If I remember correctly, the U.S. injected itself into Iraq's affairs, not vice-versa. Who's the bully, then?

[netsec]

72. So you would wait?

The President has been attacked because the intelligence services did not "connect the dots" prior to 9/11. Are you saying, being in his shoes, you would have waited until one of them actually did something to us? Are you 100% certain that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11? If so, what do you base it on? Because it has not been put on paper in front of you? The link was eluded to in the 9/11 report and the Czechs still stand by their statement that Atta met an Iraqi agent in April 2001. There was also an Iraqi newspaper recognizing their man in Pakistan who was a liaison with Al Quaeda. I admit it is all circumstantial, but it is better than saying at this time that it is not true at all.

[Julien Sorel]

74. I'm not 100% certain that my

next door neighbor, who is a gun nut, isn't going to lose it and blow me away. But I'm not going to attack him first out of 'self defense,' and neither do I have that right, legally or morally. Sorry, one allegation from the Czechs isn't justification for war, especially when it runs counter to the findings of every intelligence agency in the world.

Nobody who actually belongs on this board calls the simian coke fiend 'the President' by the way. But then, people with your grasp of 'history' and politics tend to have short half-lifes, anyway, so why bother with a warning.

[netsec]

77. If you recall

I agreed that it was slim and hardly a single reason to go to war.

Are you saying that I do not belong on this board? Are you afraid of a little dissent? Isn't that hypocritical of someone who "belongs on this board"? Your grasp of history is equally poor and your politics are so twisted you can't even drum up enough respect for your President to type the word. I served in the Marine Corps throughout the entire Presidency of Bill Clinton and not once publicly derided his past or his looks. I even called him my President in public (gasp!). I at least hold that much respect for this country.
So things didn't go your way in 2000? Cry me a river. Spend your time telling me how you would do things better than him. Then again, it is so much easier being an armchair quarterback like your man Clark than it is to actually be in the game.

[Julien Sorel]

80. Sorry,

your grasp of history is beyond poor. And dissent is one thing; mindlessy parroting right wing talking points and trying to pass them off as The Historical Truth isn't what this message board is about.

I have no respect at all for your president, and I won't be a hypocrite and pretend otherwise. He's a liar, a warmonger, has no respect for democracy and, a bigger sin than them all, is an incompetent. But we all have our standards; apparently yours are lower than mine, in politics as well as history.

[netsec]

82. Please explain how

my grasp of history is beyond poor. You fall into the same trap, only your talking points are on the left. You present no proof he is a liar, a warmonger, has no respect for democracy and is incompetent and say that I am mindlessly passing off talking points. Having respect for the President whether you agree with him or not is not hypocritical it is essential in a Republic (sorry, we aren't a democracy). Vote for Clark in the next election. If he wins I will call him my President because he is. Pity you don't believe enough in the Constitution to see past your own blinders.

BTW, when it comes to my standards I will stand alongside you the day it is *proven* that the President told information he knew was false. Did you stand up with the impeachers when President Clinton committed perjury?

[Julien Sorel]

83. Of course I do.

I spout off about giving 'history lessons' on Vietnam, when in fact I know nothing about the topic -- just like you do. I allege France vowed to veto 'any resolutions' on Iraq, which is shamefully incorrect -- just like you do.

As for Clinton, I turned against him as soon as the Monica gate thing hit and it was obvious he was lying -- I didn't need to wait for the trial; it was obvious he was lying his ass off. Just as obvious as it is with Bush, now.

I have to admit I'm simply flattened by your probity, and allegiance to the constitution. Bush would do well to learn from your sterling example. You also share an approximately equal understanding of history with your president. No wonder you like him so much.

[metisnation]

87. he just said it

Bush accepted blame for his Jan. 28 State of the Union claim that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was shopping for nuclear materials in Africa.


"I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely," the president said. Previously, he let CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet and a national security aide take blame for the controversy.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030...

[netsec]

92. He took responsibility

that his words are his. For it to have been a lie he would have had to know that it was false when he said it. British intelligence did tell him that Iraq was shopping for uranium in Africa and that was what he said. British intelligence stands by their assessment mainly because they say that there was more than the forged document to back up their claim. Was Clinton lying when he said Saddam had WMDs and bombed Iraq?

[metisnation]

94. He might have been

I lose respect for any individual that tarnishes democracy. If Clinton did lie he should be tried for war crimes as well as Bush. The plain fact is that we have been lied to repeatedly about. It is the pattern I am concerned with not the particular event. So while you fondle in the specifics most of us are gazing back at the big picture and saying to ourselves how crooked these two men are. So we are at a crossroads, do we re-elect incompetence wholesale or do we find another vision to follow and share?

[Julien Sorel]

101. Bush isn't Clinton.

This isn't 1998. Clinton didn't launch a full scale invasion of Iraq. Most importantly, Clinton isn't in power now; monkey boy is. Your president made specific allegations against Iraq, which proved to be false; more importantly, it is now obvious that he should have known they were false at the time. I don't recall him referring to Clinton in his SOTU address. That would make Clinton irrelevant to this particular discussion, although, like most right wingers, you seem to have PTSD when it comes to Clinton -- any discussion, no matter where it starts, eventually comes back to him, like some mentally disturbed people will constantly relive an imagined trauma. But this is about Bush and his invasion, not Clinton and his bombing, Clinton and his penis, or any other topic.

[Rex]

98. You're right on one account, we can't really compare this to

Vietnam, yet. Hopefully we will wise up and figure out that you don't win a nations heart by killing its citizens indiscriminatly. If you want to argue with me on that, I can pull up alot of stories on the net (some recent) of horrendous actions taken against the Iraqi people (most recently the kidnapping of families of wanted Iraqis) by our military leaders. Let's just hope in 5 years we aren't comparing Iraq to Vietnam.

[gulliver]

62. Easy.

First, there's the "fool me twice" factor. This investment may or may not be "worse than" Vietnam. We don't know yet. But we do know that we thought we were going into this one with the lessons of Vietnam firmly in mind.

Second, times are now a lot different. The enemy in Vietnam never sent soldiers to the United States to blow up our buildings. Radical Muslims did that. And Bush may have played right into their hands. This time the fight is with people who hate us and want to bring the fight to America.

And then there is your laundry list. Basically every one of your atrocities has been and is being committed on a daily basis in other countries. But we aren't occupying those countries with 60% of our available army on the basis of "sales lies" about their threats to our (admittedly selfish) vital interests -- unlike the case with Iraq.

There are two in your list (which you say goes on, but I doubt) that aren't addressed in that way. The use of chemical weapons about 20 years ago, and the defiance of UN mandates. Let's address the UN mandates.

We couldn't get the UN to go in with us. Apparently the UN didn't agree with your interpretation of the level of defiance or the necessary response. Bush said at the time that he would seek a vote of the Security Council for a mandate for war "regardless of the whip count." But then it became apparent that the Security Council wasn't going to vote his way, so Bush went back on his word and waged war without the vote.

[netsec]

67. a history lesson

Our involvement in Vietnam started under Kennedy. Johnson may have lied to the US about the Gulf of Tonkin attacks (many would say he did lie, but I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt in honor of the people who died). 50,000 American bodybags later, Nixon pulls us out. How can Iraq possibly even come close to that crime?

You are correct about those atrocities happening elsewhere. Myanmar, Cuba, China, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and others are equally as guilty. They should be pressured to give up their dictatorships and move to democracy and rejoice in the freedoms we have in America. I believe that will happen. Whether by stick or carrot will be seen. Afghanistan was first, Iraq was second, and others are to follow. The people who are suffering need us.

I will go on since you questioned me. He employed professional rapists, he cut off the heads of women who he labeled as prostitutes but who were speaking out against him, he publicly cut off the tongue of an Iraqi official who was "accused" of attempting to escape Iraq just before we invaded and left him to bleed to death, he had a prison for children who refused to join the Saddam youth, he placed people in industrial plastic shredders either head first or feet first depending on how much he wanted them to suffer. Shall I go on or is that enough for you. It is reported there are 300,000 people missing, more than likely in a mass grave somewhere. He used the gas back in the 80s against the Iranians and his own people.

We got the UN to issue 16 resolutions and Saddam defied every one of them. France threatened to veto any further resolutions so they are the ones who cut off diplomacy. With sixteen resolutions in hand and Congress' OK, that was enough. The only resolution that really mattered was the first one after Gulf War 1 that told Saddam to disarm. Defying that one meant that we go back to the state of war we had in 1991. The President should have never said he was going to go back for another resolution and instead stuck with Congress' vote and resolution 1441.

[Julien Sorel]

70. A better history lesson.

American involvement in Vietnam started under Truman, not Kennedy. America was involved in Vietnam almost from the start of the conflict.

We got the UN to issue 16 resolutions and Saddam defied every one of them. France threatened to veto any further resolutions so they are the ones who cut off diplomacy. With sixteen resolutions in hand and Congress' OK, that was enough. The only resolution that really mattered was the first one after Gulf War 1 that told Saddam to disarm. Defying that one meant that we go back to the state of war we had in 1991. The President should have never said he was going to go back for another resolution and instead stuck with Congress' vote and resolution 1441.


France did not say they would veto 'any' further resolutions; they said they would veto any resolutions that would automatically lead to war. The rest of your post is your own opinion; considering the accuracy of your 'history lesson,' your opinion counts for shit.

[netsec]

75. Truman?

Considering the French finally left as a result of the Geneva Accord of 1954 and Eisenhower was President by then, I would say all of your opinions are equally shit.

http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview.html

[Julien Sorel]

76. LOL

The conflict started with the Vietminh fighting against the French, with the U.S. providing financial, logistical, and training support, including advisors, under Truman. Eisenhower allowed the South Vietnamese to ignore the Geneva agreements and forego a unifying election, and the rest is history, if you'll forgive the pun.

[netsec]

78. First time

I've heard of that. I have read Street Without Joy and do not remember any mention of American involvement. Nor can I seem to find it anywhere else. Please tell me your source for that. I will forgive the pun in that case.

[Julien Sorel]

79. Surely you can do a web search?

Using the search terms 'vietnam,' and 'truman' gave me this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/time/tl1-noframes....

It looks basically accurate.

[netsec]

84. Fair enough

So the OSS/CIA was there quietly. Okay. I did the same search and came up with the link I gave. Seemed a little more credible to go to an edu than PBS. I was wrong. Learn something new everyday. I guess you can't trust vassar college to get their history straight.

[Julien Sorel]

86. Blame Vassar. Right.

The standard bulk work on Vietnam is Karnow's Vietnam, which I'm quite certain covers Truman and Vietnam. I know it's elsewhere, as well. You would do well not to presume to give out history lessons when you youself are badly in need of them.

[netsec]

91. My bust

I have not read Karnow's book so I concede the point (which I believe I did in the last post). I spent more of my time reading books about the battles since I care more about the right and wrong ways to do things. That way I did not plant my Marines the next time I found myself in a similar position. Since you do not know me your presumption, except on this point is incorrect. I know quite a bit about history (despite my failure on this) and actually enjoy learning so I am not at all embarassed that you made your point.

As for Vassar, can't you see a joke or did I fire you up so much that you have lost your humor?

[Julien Sorel]

97. LOL

Fired up, indeed.

If that's your idea of a joke, then I suggest you go back to giving history lessons. You were better at it.

[gulliver]

73. Here's how.

We pulled out of Vietnam because Congress cut the budget in '75, according to you. Leaving aside that "history lesson" from you ... have we had any problems from Vietnam since then?

Now lets look at Iraq. It's the opposite situation in many ways. In Vietnam, we went to support a regime. In Iraq, we went to destroy one and build a new one in its place. But suppose we set up (and have to support) a weak puppet regime in Iraq that is opposed by Iraqis and by a significant percentage of multi-national terrorists. That, it seems to me, would parallel the situation of Vietnam before the war.

So Iraq itself could become a Vietnam. That would make it as bad as Vietnam.

How could it be worse? Well, multi-national terrorists, taking advantage of anti-Americanism spawned by Bush's stupid, expensive, bloody, sales-lie-based adventurism in Iraq, could in short order wreak havoc within the United States. By weakening NATO and the UN, by alienating the United States from everyone but the U.K. (whose people are alienated too if there govenrment isn't), Bush has set the United States up for decades of danger. We might have had a chance against global terrorism if the rest of the world were on our side, but Bush has set the U.S. and the U.K. up as Public Enemies 1 and 2 of Muslim terrorists.

Then, I guess I shouldn't have doubted you on the atrocities list. Looks like you've got a whole bunch of them. I doubt most of them. Some may be true, but they sound a lot like propaganda to me -- and lacking links, that's exactly what they are.

And they are all irrelevant anyway. Bush didn't tell us to go to war to save women from (your dubiously claimed) "professional rapists." And it is not a vital interest were it even true.

[netsec]

81. check it out

So you think there is the possibility of filling 50,000 American bodybags? Where are all the terrorist attacks that were supposed to have happened when we went into Iraq? Where are all of them now that we are still there? The Arab street was supposed to rise up when we entered Iraq, what happened? If you can use see no evil, so shall I.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_3-eng

Freedom is a vital interest and should be promoted and fought for wherever it is denied. Imagine how this world would look if all dictators were done away with in a similar fashion. Do you have the stomach to see it through?

[gulliver]

85. Did. Disproves you.

Some of the things on your list are there. Some aren't. Industrial plastic shredders, professional rapists, beheadings ... aren't. You are being misinformed.

Still, the ones in the Amnesty (I support Amnesty International) page you cite are awful. Something should have been done about them... in 1985-1991 when most of them occurred (under Reagan and Bush I). Toward the end of that time, our "good friend of every fighting man" Rumsfeld (called Dumbsfeld by some troops I understand) was shaking hands with Hussein on camera. Amnesty often cites the United States for problems too. Do a search there.

It's too bad that people like yourself get whipped into a frenzy so easily by emotionally charged sales spiel. For Dems, freedom and liberty are things to be cherished and fought for, things to be realized. For Bushite corporatists (not all Republicans by any means), freedom and liberty are just the best words to use to separate fools from their money, their future, and sometimes their lives.

[netsec]

88. The things that aren't

listed at amnesty were in articles I read leading up to the war. One was from a human shield who left Iraq prior to the invasion because he was disillusioned. The beheadings and professional rapist came from the human rights report that was issued by the British government. I would take the time to find those too, but just like everyone else on your side, you will never concede that you are wrong.
According to Amnesty, the truth about all of it did not truly come to light until 1991, although, as it says there were reporrts prior. I agree something should have been done prior and the people you mention are equally as guilty for not doing anything about it. Even worse, though, is 8 years under your President and absolutely nothing happened even still. On top of that, under your view of the world, Clinton is guilty for all of those deaths that occurred because of his enforcing the UN sanctions. At least those are gone now.

What have you done to "fight" for freedom? Write anonymously on a web page full of like-minded people? If you are so morally clear on your position, how come you aren't in Iraq trying to give the Iraqi people back the freedom they enjoyed under Saddam?

[metisnation]

89. disconnect

there is a disconnect from amnesty and the blue collar commnity here in chicago. Everyone knows that it is a sham.

[Clyde39]

60. Bush will OK it because of God!

Remember, God is supposed to have sanctioned the "war"!

[netsec]

64. Really?

When did the President say God sanctioned the war? You believe the President would bring back such an odious thing as the draft and use "God told me to" as his answer? Wow, I have seen some stretches of the imagination, but this is out there.

[classics]

66. Bush is on a mission from God.

Bush Says Secretary Powell Will Link Iraq And Al Qaeda


The president also demonstrated a willingness to frame the U.S. position within a spiritual context. "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity," he stated.

"We Americans have faith in ourselves but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history," he said.

Governor Gary Locke of Washington state delivered the Democratic Party's response to Bush's speech shortly after the president had concluded his remarks.

With regard to U.S. policy toward Iraq, Locke said Democrats support the president but believe he should secure the support of allies abroad before launching any attack.


http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1459736/01292003/id_0....

[netsec]

68. Liberty is from God

So where does it say that God sanctioned this campaign? I see that the President believes that liberty is God's gift to humanity. So you are saying that because the President said that liberty is God's gift to humanity and we fought in Iraq to secure the liberty of the Iraqi people, that the President believes God sanctioned the war? Okay, I'm comfortable with that. Put aside your partisanship for a second and at least admit that freeing the Iraqi people was a good thing to do. For the sake of friendship, I will concede that WMDs were also a major reason we went to war. Suppose that we never find any WMDs, isn't the freedom of the Iraqi people a good enough thing we did to justify the campaign?

You still haven't answered my first question, do you really believe that he will bring back the draft and say "God said its okay"?

[agincourt]

93. It all sounds nice and good,

But I still think Shrub will fuck up this wet dream. They should all love us over there with Saddam chased out of Baghdad and all. Something just tells me that the administration will screw this up,good cause or not. Oh, and yes, if shrub would bring back the draft he'd probably say "the lorwd told him to do so". It would not suprise me at all.

[saigon68]

104. Delusions of grandeur

This view is a mental condition diagnosed by psychiatrists.

[JackDragna]

99. Your argument is shallow

I say that freeing the Iraqi people, in the manner we did it, was a mistake and so far has been a colossal failure. Democracy rarely comes to other nations by the point of a sword. If people do not want or fight for their own freedoms, then they're likely not going to see someone trying to provide it for them as helpful.

Your assertion that this was a good thing, as well as your suggestion that people here might not have the "stomach" to remove world dictators, is not politically or socially sound. Democracy only does well in places where civil rights and political choice are valued by society. There are places in the world that, despite how we'd wish it otherwise, are populated by citizens that don't mind what the dictator does so long as the trains run on time. Going in with guns blazing in these places and telling the citizens that they're free isn't going to let democracy take root.

There is very little chance of any kind of permanent democracy flourishing in Iraq. The majority of Iraqis are Shi'ites and have little esteem for westernized, secular government. They also see western society as decadent and sinful and aren't about to accept any governmental system we give them.

We would all like people around the world to be free, but we cannot make them be free. Being a good example of the sort of society that democracy can bring is a thousand times more valuable than trying to browbeat that sense into people. I'd even argue that, in Iraq, the small chance we have to establish democracy was not worth removing Hussein because removing Hussein cost untold numbers of lives, destabilized the country and made us even more of an international pariah. There are other factors to consider when impressing other nations about our nature, such as the respect we show towards international law and the way we treat our own dissenting citizens. The U.S. government basically told all nations that opposed us that they were unnecessary and did its best to villify dissenters as unpatriotic. People in other nations pay attention to those sorts of things.

The war in Iraq was a mistake. Its motives are transparent enough to anyone willing to see past the jingoism infecting this country.

[metisnation]

90. i agree

Way too left for me, but I respect your opinions. His evidence was bogus..and his motives are conspicious to say the least this is my problem. Most of all it is costing us a boatload of money at the time we need it most.

[Generic Other]

96. Need a Larger Army?

Current teenage obesity rates may help the dream become reality.

[nolabels]

102. The only problem with that is them damn C-rats, or do they call K-rats

now. If the journey to Mess Hall don't get ya, the trip to the John afterwards will.